<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><span class="" style="font-family: HoeflerText-Regular;">Hello All, </span><div class="" style="font-family: HoeflerText-Regular;"><br class=""></div><div class="" style="font-family: HoeflerText-Regular;">As some of you know, we have had <b class="">two</b> proposed multi-unit bale projects here in California shot down recently because we couldn’t provide testing that demonstrated bale walls provided the required sound isolation between units. Absurd. </div><div class="" style="font-family: HoeflerText-Regular;"><br class=""></div><div class="" style="font-family: HoeflerText-Regular;"><div class="">A group of us is looking to remedy that this year. While we research the lab test option, we are also looking at the field test route. But there are no multi-unit bale projects to test, because we need tests before they can be built. Can you say Catch-22?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So one thought is to test projects that have an <i class=""><b class="">interior</b></i> bale wall, and argue that, given the right adjoining assembles, this is equivalent to testing a wall between units. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m sending this out to solicit candidates for built projects: </div><div class="">1. In California</div><div class="">2. With no door in said interior wall, and decent dampening of flanking sound transmission paths. </div><div class="">3. In a building we can invade and disrupt for a day. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And more broadly, to invite comments and suggestions from this august body of crazies. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bob</div></div></body></html>